Jeff has mentioned before that they like to tweak the rules in order to stay one step ahead of the players. In that vein, I would like to see some changes to the "Shot in the Dark" rule. The effect it seems to have is that the alliances behave like the chance it pays off is 100% instead of about 17%. Yes, the player forfeits that vote, which is a reasonable cost. It just seems like the threat is overvalued.
ETA: OK, so after looking up the history of "Shot in the Dark" here https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Shot_in_the_Dark, my impression was totally off. The other players seem to actually undervalue it as a gameplay strategy. For example:
ETA: OK, so after looking up the history of "Shot in the Dark" here https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Shot_in_the_Dark, my impression was totally off. The other players seem to actually undervalue it as a gameplay strategy. For example:
Quote:
On the other hand, as is with the case of flushing idols, players may consider inciting paranoia to encourage a "safe" target to play (and waste) their Shot in the Dark, removing their ability to potentially save themselves at a later date.
Given that the Shot in the Dark prevents one from casting a vote, players may strategically "waste" their Shot in the Dark even without any threat of elimination. This presumably prevents them from showing their cards and potentially burning bridges with other tribe members. Players may also turn over their Shot in the Dark to another player as collateral or as a show of trust.
